                               Chapter 15
                The Select Committee on Assassinations,
             The Intelligence Community and the News Media

                                 Part I

                The Top Down vs. The Bottom Up Approach
                    To Assassination Investigations

Two  vastly  different  views  have  been  held  by  both  assassination
researchers  and members of Congress during the last three  years  about
the best way to arrive at the truth concerning political  assassinations
in  the United States.  The conservative view dictates we must build  an
investigative  base  from  the ground upward,  beginning  with  the  JFK
assassination, and use "hard" evidence in each assassination case.  This
view  assumes that any grand, overall conspiracy to cover up the  cover-
ups  would be detected and made public following exposure of  the  first
layer of cover-ups.

The less conservative view holds that the political processes underlying
the  original  assassinations and the  massive  cover-up  superstructure
should be attacked and exposed simultaneously.

The   resolutions  to  establish  a  Select  Committee  to   Investigate
Assassinations,  introduced by Thomas Downing and Henry Gonzalez in  the
House  of Representatives in 1975, were somewhat related to both  views.
The  conservative Downing resolution called for a sole investigation  of
the  JFK  case.  Gonzalez's resolution called for the reopening  of  all
four  major  cases--JFK,  RFK, Dr. King  and  George  Wallace--and  more
importantly, it called for an investigation of the possible links  among
all  four.   Gonzalez  stated  that he believed  the  country  might  be
experiencing   an  assassination-controlled  electoral   process.    His
approach was clearly allied with the less conservative view.

Research  groups,  such as Mark Lane's Citizen's Commission  of  Inquiry
(CCI), Bud Fensterwald's Committee to Investigate Assassinations (CTIA),
and Bob Katz's Assassination Information Bureau (AIB) were also  divided
in their views.  CCI and CTIA took the bottom-up approach and tended  to
support Downing.  AIB took the overview political approach and tended to
support  Gonzalez.   The  Black Caucus, Coretta  King  and  others  were
primarily interested in a broad overview of the King assassination.

The  coalition formed by Downing, Gonzalez and the Black Caucus  finally
brought about the creation of the Select Committee on Assassinations  in
the House, which represents a mixture of these views and approaches.

The  work  of  the  Select  Committee will  produce  results  if  it  is
recognized that the bottom-up approach alone cannot be used successfully
against  the group of powerful individuals that currently  controls  the
environment  in  which any investigation attempts are to be  made.   The
best  way the Select Committee can succeed against this group is to  use
what  will  be  labelled the "top down" approach  to  investigating  and
exposing the truth as a supplement to the bottom up approach.

                        The Power Control Group

The  earlier part of this book described a group of individuals  in  the
United  States and labelled them the "Power Control Group."  The PCG  is
that  group of individuals or organizations that knowingly  participated
in  one or more of the assassination conspiracies or related murders  or
attempted  murders, plus the individuals who knowingly  participated  or
are  still  participating  in the cover-ups  of  those  conspiracies  or
murders.   The  PCG  includes  any  people  in  the  CIA,  FBI,  Justice
Department, Secret Service, local police departments or sheriffs offices
in  Los  Angeles,  Memphis,  Dallas, New  Orleans  or  Florida,  judges,
district  attorneys, state attorneys general, other  federal  government
agencies, the House of Representatives, the Senate, the White House, the
Congress,  or  the Department of Defense as well as any  people  in  the
media who are under the influence of any of the above, who  participated
or are participating in the cover-ups or the cover-ups of the  cover-up.
There   are  indications  that  people  in  every  one  of   the   above
organizations or groups belong to the PCG.

                      Hard Evidence of Conspiracy

Anyone  who  has  honestly and openly taken the time to  examine  a  few
pieces  of  hard  evidence in any one of the four  major  cases  has  no
trouble  deciding  there were individual conspiracies in each.   In  the
face of this situation, the layman wonders why the Congress  continually
demands  hard evidence of conspiracy.  Statements continue to appear  in
the  media  to the effect that, "I've seen no evidence  of  conspiracy."
Or,  "We are not sure whether there were others involved in addition  to
Lee  Harvey  Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan, James Earl Ray  or  Arthur  Bremer."
These statements are made in spite of the fact that even the most casual
analysis clearly shows that Oswald, Sirhan, and Ray did not fire any  of
the shots that struck JFK, RFK and MLK, and that they were all  patsies.
Bremer  fired  some  of  the shots in the Wallace  case,  but  there  is
evidence that another gun was fired.

The  hard evidence is all old evidence.  It goes back at least  to  1967
and  1968 in the JFK case, and back to 1970 through 1972 in the RFK  and
MLK  cases.  The Wallace evidence is a little fresher, but  nevertheless
convincing.   The people who demand new evidence are either  members  of
the  PCG, or they are brainwashed by the media members of the  PCG  into
ignoring the old evidence.  They do not choose to see or to hear the old
evidence,  even when it is literally placed before their very  eyes  and
ears.   Thus  the words "hard evidence" are merely substitutes  for  the
words "no conspiracy".

                         The Bottom Up Approach

The  bottom  up approach is doomed to failure no matter how  the  Select
Committee  tries  and no matter how much effort any official  body  puts
into attempts to offer that "bombshell" that Tip O'Neill and others look
for  to  prove  conspiracy  in the JFK and MLK cases.   The  PCG  is  in
complete control of the situation.  It controls the media and the  media
controls  the  minds of most citizens and the Congress.  The  PCG  is  a
living, dynamic body right now.  They can eliminate an investigation  or
investigators right now.  They can eliminate a member of the House or  a
member of the Select Committee right now.

The  bottom  up approach will never get off the ground because  the  PCG
will  not  allow  it.  As long as the PCG controls all  the  sources  of
evidence that might contain the hard evidence in the FBI, CIA and  local
police  files,  as  long as it controls the courts, and as  long  as  it
controls the media, no one will be allowed to prove hard evidence before
the  House,  the  Senate, the President, or any  one  in  the  Executive
Branch.

                      The Events of 1976 and 1977

That  the PCG's control exists is more clearly evident now than  it  has
ever  been before.  The PCG is operating in an almost  blatant  fashion.
Any observer who keeps his eyes wide open and assumes that such a  group
exists, can see it operate almost every day.

The prime objectives of the PCG in 1976 and 1977 were:

1. To block and eliminate the Select Committee on Assassinations in  the
   House of Representatives.

2. To  firmly implant the idea that the JFK assassination was  a  Castro
   plot.

3. To   block  any  Congressional  attempts  to  investigate  the   four
   assassination cases.

4. To control the Carter Administration in such a way as to permit  only
   an  executive  branch investigation that will conclude  there  was  a
   Castro-based JFK conspiracy and no conspiracy in the other cases.

The  1977 activities of the PCG lent themselves to a new  approach,  the
"top down" approach to exposing the truth.

                            Exposing the PCG

The  top  down  approach  obviously  begins  with  exposing  the   PCG's
immediate, present activities.  The following examples are illustrative.
The  Select  Committee is certainly in a better position to  know  which
individuals  and  actions taken by the PCG since the  formation  of  the
Committee  in September, 1976 would be most easily attacked.  The  first
example is the leaked Justice Department report on the King case.

                   The Justice Department King Report

The PCG members' actions were leaked in the February 2, 1977 King report
and  released  a  few weeks later.  To review the list  of  PCG  members
involved in the cover-up of the King case:  J. Edgar Hoover, the Memphis
FBI,  Phil Canale (Memphis D.A.), Fred Vinson (State Department),  Judge
Battle,  Percy  Foreman, William Bradford Huie, Gerald  Frank  (author),
Frank Holloman and other members of the Memphis police and judges at the
state and federal court levels.

One  of  the  judges who became a PCG member in later  years  was  Judge
McCrea.  He heard James Earl Ray's plea for a new trial.  Solid evidence
of the conspiracy to frame Ray was introduced at that hearing.

Everyone  who  read or heard the evidence, with the exception  of  Judge
McCrea and his law clerk, reached the conclusion that Ray was framed and
that  his  lawyer,  Percy Foreman,  deliberately  mishandled  the  case.
Nevertheless,  McCrea decided that Ray would not get a new  trial.   The
case was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court with no reversals  of
the decision.

         Leaking the Justice Department Report on the King Case

Attorney  General Levi some years later ordered a review by the  Justice
Department  of  the  King assassination and the FBI's  handling  of  its
investigation.   A  report was prepared by Michael J. Shaheen,  who  did
most of the Justice Department work.  No public announcement was made in
1976 upon completion of the report.  Suddenly, on the exact day that the
House  was  debating  whether  to  reconstitute  the  Select   Committee
(February  2,  1977),  the  King report was  leaked  to  the  Republican
minority leader of the opposition, Representative Quillen of  Tennessee.
He  announced he had a copy of the report.  Representative Yvonne  Burke
from  California, a member of the Select Committee and also a member  of
the House Committee responsible for oversight of the Justice Department,
took  strong  issue  with  Quillen over the  leak.   She  said  she  had
unsuccessfully  tried  to obtain the report that day  from  the  Justice
Department.  Quillen stated at first he did not have the report, but had
an Associated Press release describing the report.  About an hour later,
he  said  he had received a copy of the report.  Burke stated  that  was
very strange;  not even the proper committee of the House had received a
copy.

The report was quoted to say that the Justice Department had closed  the
King case and concluded James Earl Ray was the lone assassin.  Placed in
the  hands of the opposition to the Select Committee, the statement  was
strategically  useful.  Quillen argued against continuing the  Committee
on the strength of the conclusions reached in the report.

                          Releasing the Report

On  February  19,  1977, the King report was  released  by  the  Justice
Department.   Blaring  headlines  again  emphasized  no  conspiracy  and
exonerated the FBI's conduct in their investigation.  A showdown meeting
was scheduled for February 21 between Henry Gonzalez and Tip O'Neill, to
be  followed  the  same  day by a meeting of  the  Select  Committee  to
determine  whether they would continue with Richard A. Sprague as  chief
counsel.

The absurd report was published in the "New York Times" on February  19,
1977.   The  PCG  's  tactics became  somewhat  obvious  on  that  date.
Attorney  General  Griffin Bell, having inherited the  report  from  Mr.
Levi,  let  slip  an important opinion on the  CBS  program,  "Face  the
Nation" on the Sunday before the report was described as "still  secret"
by the UPI news release quoting Mr. Bell.

Bell  said he believed there were questions the report did  not  answer.
Bell clarified his concerns after the February 19 release of the  report
by  stating on the 24th that he might want to interview Ray to find  out
where  Ray  obtained all of the money he had before and after  King  was
shot,  and  whether  anyone helped him obtain false  passports  or  make
travel  arrangements.  Perhaps Bell was troubled by one of the  report's
conclusions--that  one  of Ray's motives in killing King was to  make  a
"quick profit."

This indicates that Mr. Bell, and presumably Mr. Carter, are not members
of  the PCG cover-up on the King case.  It also seems obvious  that  Mr.
Levi  and the people preparing the report and conducting the review  had
become members of the PCG.  The timed release and leaking of that report
and the total whitewash of the King conspiracy are too patently  obvious
to be coincidental.  This is one area in which the Select Committee  has
an excellent chance to expose a raw nerve of the PCG.

                     Michael Shaheen -- PCG Member

A key PCG member in the situation would appear to be Mr. Shaheen,  Judge
McCrea's  law  clerk mentioned earlier in the PCG cover-up  in  Memphis.
Shaheen  was  deeply  involved in the old cover-up as well  as  the  new
cover-up.   He is from Memphis and part of that closed circle of  people
in Tennessee who know very well what happened to Martin Luther King  and
how  Ray was framed.  Mr. Shaheen is now planning to become a  judge  in
Memphis with the help of all his co-conspirators and PCG members.

Who  called the shots in this Justice Department effort?  Was  it  Levi?
Was  it  the PCG members left over from the  Nixon-Ford  administration?
Was  it members of the PCG still in the FBI?  Was it the Tennessee  wing
of  the PCG that includes Judge McCrea, Phil Canale, Howard  Baker,  Mr.
Quillen and Bernard Fensterwald, Jr.?  The Select Committee should  find
out.  The report itself is easily attacked.  It quotes the fake  Charlie
Stevens  testimony all over again, as if no one knew he had been  bought
off  by Hoover to identify Ray.  Stevens was dead drunk and saw  nothing
on the day of the King assassination.

        Ignoring or Suppressing Conspiracy and Framing Evidence

Shaheen's  review did not touch upon any of the evidence  regarding  the
framing of Ray that was introduced at the hearing that Judge McCrea  and
Shaheen  knew  so very well.  The witnesses who had seen Ray  at  a  gas
station  several  blocks from the assassination site when the  shot  was
fired  were  ignored.  Grace Walden Stevens saw Frenchy (Raoul)  in  the
rooming  house, identified Frenchy as the man she saw, and knew  Charlie
had  seen nothing.  She had to be ignored.  The witnesses who  saw  Jack
Youngblood  move away from the bushes from which he had fired  the  shot
had  to  be ignored.  Hoover and Fred Vinson's use  of  Stevens's  false
testimony  to  extradite Ray from London had to be ignored.   The  FBI's
role  in  Memphis, including its instructions to the witnesses  who  had
seen Frenchy to keep quiet was to be kept a dark secret.  The similarity
between  Frenchy's  photograph  and  the  sketch  of  Raoul  and   Ray's
subsequent identification of Frenchy as Raoul had to be kept quiet.

More  ignored evidence was turned up by Huie.  He found three  witnesses
who  had  seen  Ray  and Frenchy-Raoul  together  both  in  Atlanta  and
Montreal.   They confirmed Ray's claim that he was framed.  All  of  the
evidence   involving  Youngblood  and  Frenchy,  uncovered   by   Robert
Livingston and Wayne Chastain and published in "Computers and People" in
1974, was omitted.

Livingston  was  Ray's  attorney in Tennessee.  Chastain  is  a  Memphis
reporter.   Livingston and Chastain's sighting of Frenchy-Raoul  at  the
Detroit  airport  during  a meeting between  Livingston,  Chastain,  Bud
Fensterwald and the intermediary representing Frenchy (in an attempt  to
obtain  immunity for him in exchange for revealing the identity  of  the
Tennesseans and Louisianians who had hired him) was ignored.

Exposure of this segment of the PCG would have done more to bolster  the
1977 efforts of the Select Committee than any presentation of conspiracy
evidence in the King case itself.

              The PCG's Tactics With the Select Committee

In  the early days of the formation of the Committee in September  1976,
the PCG might have taken the Committee very lightly.  The PCG's  efforts
to  stop an investigation from beginning in the spring of  1976  through
its  control  of the Rules Committee had been successful.   Downing  and
Gonzalez  had  given  up.  But when  the  three-way  coalition  suddenly
brought about a reversal of their earlier Rules Committee vote, and  the
House  quickly  and  overwhelmingly passed a resolution to  set  up  the
Committee,  the  PCG  was forced to go back to the  drawing  boards  for
retaliation.

Before  the  PCG  had time to react, Downing  and  Gonzalez  hired  Dick
Sprague as chief counsel.  Sprague very rapidly hired the equivalent  of
his own FBI.  He sensed from the start that he might be up against  both
the  FBI  and  the  CIA, so he  carefully  screened  his  investigators,
lawyers,  researchers  and  other  personnel  to  prevent   intelligence
penetration of the staff.  However, some personnel were "handed" to  him
by both Gonzalez and Downing.

It  goes  almost  without  saying  that the  PCG  would  have  tried  to
infiltrate the staff.  What they learned by their early infiltration was
that Sprague and his crack team were not only on the right track in both
the  JFK and MLK investigations, but also that the tactics used  by  the
PCG  in  those  weeks were making the staff and some  of  the  committee
members suspicious about the PCG itself.

                  PCG Control of Prior Investigations

It  became  imperative  for  the PCG  to  either  eliminate  the  entire
Committee or to gain control of it and to rid it of Dick Sprague and the
senior staff people who were loyal to him.  It was no longer possible to
turn  the investigations around and bury the information that  had  been
gathered   as   the   PCG  had  done  with   six   prior   Congressional
investigations.   In  each  of the  prior  investigations  (five  Senate
investigations and one House investigation of the JFK assassination) the
PCG  had  controlled the results, disbanded the staffs  and  buried  the
evidence.  The six groups were:

1. 1968--A  Senate  subcommittee  under  Senator  Ed  Long  of  Missouri
   conducted  a  JFK investigation.  Bernard Fensterwald,  Jr.,  was  in
   charge of a six-person team.

2. 1974--The  Ervin  Committee  investigated the  JFK  case  during  the
   Watergate  period.  Samuel Dash headed a team of four  that  included
   Terry Lenzer, Barry Schochet and Wayne Bishop.

3. 1975--The  Church  Committee.   A six-person  team  reported  to  FAO
   Schwartz III.  It included Bob Kelley, Dan Dwyer, Ed Greissing,  Paul
   Wallach, Pat Shea and David Aaron.

4. 1975--The Schweiker-Hart subcommittee under the Church Committee  had
   a team headed by David Marston, that included Troy Gustafson,  Gaeton
   Fonzi, and Elliott Maxwell.

5. 1975--Pike Committee in House.  People unknown.

6. 1976--Senate Intelligence Committee under Daniel Inouye.

In  addition, both Howard Baker and Lowell Weicker conducted  their  own
investigations of the JFK case during the Watergate period.

Sprague  and his senior staff people are professionals compared  to  the
amateurs   listed  above.   Wayne  Bishop  was  the  only   professional
investigator in all of the staff groups.  It was easy for the PCG to cut
off or alter the directions of the prior investigations.  Thus, the  one
with  the  greatest  hope,  the Schweiker  subcommittee,  wound  up  not
mentioning  any  of  the important evidence  uncovered  in  Florida  and
elsewhere in their final report.  The Congress and the public were  left
with  the impression that there might have been a Castro  conspiracy  to
assassinate JFK.

                              PCG Strategy

Faced  with the new committee and Sprague's staff, the PCG had devise  a
strategy that included:

1.  Attacking  Dick Sprague to discredit him with dirt and print  it  in
    the media.

2.  Using the media to spread PCG propaganda and control the sources  of
    all stories concerning the Select Committee.

3.  Using  PCG  Congressmen to provide biased, distorted quotes  to  the
    media for its use.

4.  Trying  to discredit the entire committee by making it appear to  be
    disorganized and unmanageable.

5.  Controlling the voting and lobbying against the continuation of  the
    committee in January and February.

6.  Influencing  members  of  the House to vote  against  the  Committee
    through a massive letter and telegram campaign.

7.  Exaggerating the emphasis placed on the size of the budget requested
    by Sprague without considering the need for such a budget.

8.  Demanding that the committee justify its existence by producing  new
    evidence.

9.  Splitting  the  committee  and  attempting  to  create   dissension;
    creating  a  battle between Henry Gonzalez and Richard  Sprague  and
    between Gonzalez and Downing.

10. Hamstringing the staff so they could not receive salaries, could not
    travel,  did not have subpoena power, could not make  long  distance
    telephone  calls;  blocking  access to the key  files  at  the  FBI,
    Justice Department, CIA and Secret Service.

11. Trying to insert their own man at the head of the staff.

12. Brainwashing  Henry Gonzalez into believing that Sprague and  others
    were agents.

13. Sacrificing Henry Gonzalez when it became obvious the PCG could  not
    control him as their chairman.

14. Leaking  stories  that  seemed  to  make  the  committee's   efforts
    unnecessary.

                             Media Control

The primary technique used by the PCG is its nearly absolute control  of
the  media.  This is not as difficult to achieve as one  might  imagine.
Since  most of the stories about the committee originate  in  Washington
under rather tightly-knit conditions, it is necessary to control only  a
small  number of key reporters and their bosses.  The rest of the  media
follow along like sheep.

The  PCG trotted out some of their old-timers in the media  to  initiate
the public and congressional brainwashing program against the committee.
They  used the same tactic against Jim Garrison between 1967  and  1969.
The old-timers included Jeremiah O'Leary, George Lardner, Jr., and David
Burnham.   Jeremiah  O'Leary of the "Washington Star" was on  the  CIA's
list of reporters exposed the year before.  George Lardner Jr. had  been
in  David Ferrie's apartment until 4 AM on the morning he was  murdered.
Lardner was a PCG member in 1967, while he worked as a reporter for  the
"Washington  Post" (he is still with the "Post").  David Burnham at  the
"New  York Times," one of the several reporters in Harrison  Salisbury's
and  Harding Bancroft, Jr.'s stable of PCG workers, was called  upon  to
carry the brunt of the "Times"' attack.

There were, of course, others.  As in 1967 and at other times during the
first  decade  of media cover-ups, the major TV,  radio,  wire  service,
magazine and newspaper media acted as a cover-up unit.  Ben Bradlee, the
PCG  chieftain at the "Washington Post," made sure that  "Newsweek"  did
their  hatchet jobs.  Time, Inc., CBS (with Eric Sevaried,  Dick  Salant
and Leslie Midgeley), NBC (with David Brinkley), and ABC (with Bob Clark
and Howard K. Smith) all went on the attack.  The overall theme was that
the committee would soon die out.

                             Media Tactics

The tactics first used were to create the impression that the  Committee
was not going to find anything of importance.  Then Dick Sprague  became
the  chief target.  One of the dirty tricks used against  him  portrayed
him  as  arrogant, flamboyant, power-mad, and as a man who  usurped  the
powers  of the Committee.  The writers and editors of the PCG  are  very
good at this sort of thing.  The "New York Times," with Burnham  writing
and Salisbury and Bancroft directing, did a real hatchet job on Sprague.
These techniques convinced congressmen and much of the public.   Sqrague
was forced to stay very quiet and away from reporters and cameras.  That
did  not deter the PCG people.  Once an image of a man has been  created
by the media, it is not necessary for him to appear in public.  He could
even disappear for several weeks, but the flamboyant, noisy image  would
go  on uninterrupted.  This technique is much less obvious than  murder,
but  it  works  nearly  as well.  When the  time  comes  to  destroy  or
eliminate the man, all the PCG has to do is create an image.

                          The Vote to Continue

The  man chosen to eliminate Sprague was the new chairman of the  Select
Committee,  Henry  Gonzalez.  Before setting up a  classic  "personality
conflict" between Gonzalez and Sprague, the PCG used another tactic.  It
attempted  to kill the Committee with a vote not to continue it  in  the
1977 Congress.

The  House  and  media  PCG  members  overemphasized  the  large  budget
requested  by  Dick Sprague, the use of the polygraph, the  use  of  the
psychological  stress evaluator and the telephone monitoring  equipment.
Rather than telling the truth about the budget, describing how the money
would be spent, and describing why and how the equipment was going to be
used,  the media (aided and abetted by PCG members in the House  itself)
made  it  seem  as though the budget was totally out of  line  and  that
citizen's  rights would be violated by the use of such  equipment.   The
PCG planted false information that led Don Edwards of California to play
into their hands on the equipment issue.

The  year-end  report of the Committee, which they and the  staff  hoped
would make these subjects clear, countered the media attacks.  *But*, of
course,  the  PCG  controls the media, and  the  report  was  completely
blacked  out.  Most citizens do not even know it exists.   Almost  every
U.S. citizen has heard and seen Dick Sprague called a rattlesnake and an
unscrupulous  character.   However,  the  PCG  lost  the  vote   against
continuing the Committee and used a new method to try to kill it.

                             The New Tactic

The PCG decided to use Gonzalez to control the Committee.  The stage was
set  for  the PCG to knock off Sprague and to install one of  their  own
men.   The  plan  was to do this by  brainwashing  Henry  Gonzalez  into
distrusting Sprague and selected members of the Committee and the staff.

The idea was to use Gonzalez in this way to install a PCG man (the  fact
that  he  was  a PCG man was unknown to Gonzalez)  as  chief  of  staff.
Gonzalez  would fire Sprague and the key staff members,  first  blocking
their access to important files and witnesses.  The PCG would then  have
been  in a position to either fold up the Committee by March 31,  or  to
direct  its efforts toward finding a Castro-did-it conspiracy  in  JFK's
case and no conspiracy in the King case.

                            Tactic Backfires

The PCG did not forecast one important effect their tactics would  have.
By the time Henry Gonzalez became chairman, the other eleven members  of
the  Committee and its staff had begun to smell a rat.  They noted  with
curiosity  all  of the strange coincidences that occurred.   During  the
floor  debate  on  February  2,  1977  over  continuing  the  Committee,
Representatives  Devine, Preyer, Burke and Fauntroy let the rest of  the
House know that they believed something peculiar was happening to  them.
The  appearance  of  the  Justice Department report  on  that  same  day
disturbed them very much.  The attacks on Sprague upset them also.

The staff were even more disturbed.  Most of them had assumed they  were
being  asked  to conduct a thorough and unbiased  investigation  of  two
homicides.  The power of the PCG became obvious to them over a period of
several  weeks.  The effect of this on both the Committee and its  staff
was to drive all eighty-four people (73 staff and 11 Committee  members)
into  a solid block (the only exceptions were Gonzalez's people  on  the
staff),  more determined than ever to get at the truth.   Some  staffers
began  using  their own money for travel.  All of them  took  pay  cuts.
Many  of them decided they would work for nothing if necessary  to  keep
going.  The PCG's strategy had backfired.  The eighty-four loyal  people
were  like  one giant lion backed into a corner, spurred on  to  greater
heights to fight back.

For  this  reason, the PCG tactic to use a  brainwashed  Henry  Gonzalez
failed.  The eighty-four people resisted that manuever by threatening to
resign  en  masse.   Tip O'Neill and others were forced  to  go  against
Gonzalez.   Gonzalez resigned.  The House voted by a large  majority  to
accept his resignation and Tip O'Neill appointed Louis Stokes as the new
chairman.  At this point, the PCG decided to abandon Gonzalez and to try
another  tactic,  signalled by an article in the  "Washington  Star"  on
March  3,  1977.   Written by "Star" staff writer  Lynn  Rosellini,  the
article  was  entitled, "Gonzalez' Action Stuns Panel but Not  the  Home
Folks."   It was manufactured by the PCG to discredit Gonzalez  and  his
final demise.  (It was the first anti-Gonzalez article to appear.)   The
PCG  had  obviously  decided  to throw  Gonzalez  to  the  wolves.   The
significant quote was supposedly from a "source familiar with  Gonzalez'
career" that said "Henry focuses in on conspiracies, the weird angle  of
things.  Once he gets involved in something, he shakes it by the  throat
until  it's  dead."   That was a dead giveaway that the  PCG  no  longer
wanted Henry around.

                  Next Tactic -- Death By Acclamation

The  PCG's next tactic was to convince a majority of the House that  the
Committee  had had it because of the feuding as portrayed in the  press.
They hoped to either eliminate the Committee altogether or eliminate the
JFK  investigation or to force Sprague to resign.  (After all, the  King
conspiracy can always be blamed on J. Edgar Hoover, if it comes down  to
that.  There is no particular spillover from the King case into JFK, RFK
or  Wallace,  provided Frenchy can be kept out of  the  limelight.)   It
might have been possible for the PCG Congressmen to propose dropping the
JFK  case  or to propose postponing it in favor of continuing  just  the
King case with a reduced budget.  Prior to March 31, a House floor  vote
or  a  vote in the Rules Committee could have been proposed  that  might
have  limited  the  investigations  and  the  authority  of  the  Select
Committee in this way.  The rules under which the Select Committee would
operate  were  not passed by the Committee due to the  conflict  between
Henry  Gonzalez and the rest of the members, so the proposal could  have
included restrictive rules.  The PCG media could have boosted this  idea
with the PCG loyalists in the House.  Jim Wright appeared to be the  new
leader of the opposition to kill the Select Committee.  More ground  was
being laid every day for a negative vote on continuation.  The hint  was
that the Committee must come up with a bombshell or that it will die.

The  Committee fought off this tactic by diverting the attention of  the
media  through  a  series of very rapidly developing  activities  and  a
substantial  reduction  in the proposed budget, which plummeted  to  2.8
million for the remainder of 1977.  The House finally voted to  continue
the  Committee  by  a  very narrow margin, with  a  swing  of  25  votes
determining the result.

The  final  weapon used to obtain a vote to continue  the  Committee  on
March 30 was the resignation of Dick Sprague.

                            Exposing the PCG

The  best  way  to expose the PCG is to demonstrate  that  it  has  been
influencing or controlling the media and attempting to control Congress.
How can this be done?  It will be necessary to show who the PCG  members
are  in  the House and the media and exactly what they have  been  doing
while  they are doing it.  Getting this kind of information out  to  the
public will be very difficult, since the entire media group seems to  be
controlled.   Live  TV  is  not  easily  controllable.   If  unannounced
exposures  of PCG members are made on live TV there would be no way  for
the PCG to stop it.  About the only way to set up such a situation would
be to hold public hearings with live TV coverage.

Exposing  the PCG to Congress might be accomplished on the floor of  the
House.   Evidence  of the clandestine activities of PCG members  in  the
tactics  described above could be introduced on the floor without  media
coverage.  This happened to a minor extent on March 30 when some of  the
Committee members began to accuse the media of improper influence.

                        Who Are The PCG Members

The  PCG  members presently attempting to control the  Select  Committee
must  be clearly identified.[1]  There are, no doubt, some media  people
and   Representatives   who  sincerely  believe  that  there   were   no
conspiracies and who have been playing into the hands of the PCG without
realizing it.  Other Representatives, and media people by the definition
of the term PCG, are purposefully controlling the situation.  It may  be
difficult  to distinguish between these two groups without tracing  back
some  PCG  connection  of  the culprits.  Any  CIA  or  FBI  clandestine
relationship  or  any direct connection with any  of  the  assassination
cases  would  be  a tip.  An example of this is  George  Lardner,  Jr.'s
direct  connection  with the JFK case ten years ago.   (Lardner  was  in
David Ferrie's apartment for four hours after the midnight time of death
estimated  by  the New Orleans coroner.  Ferrie was killed by  a  karate
chop  to  the back of his neck.)  Jim Garrison interrogated  Lardner  at
some length, but he never received a satisfactory explanation of what he
had been doing there.

While  it  may be difficult to tell which congressmen  are  sincere  and
which are knowingly trying to extend the cover-ups, the Select Committee
must  turn  its  attention  to any member of the  House  who  throws  up
roadblocks  or who speaks out strongly against the continuation  of  the
investigations.   On  this  basis, one must suspect  every  one  of  the
Representatives cited below.

Many  questions  should  be  asked of  this  group.   For  example,  who
encouraged Mr. Bauman during that autumn and on March 30, Mr. Sisk  last
spring and Mr. Quillen in February to suddenly become so vehement  about
stopping  investigations  of the assassinations?  Their  stated  reasons
were  that the Kennedys were opposed, costs, the lack of  new  evidence,
the  Warren Commission, etc.  But these reasons can no longer  be  their
own true beliefs.  On whose behalf were they acting?  How did Trent Lott
find  out  that the Committee staff made a telephone call  to  Cameroon,
which he discussed on March 28 at the Rules meeting?

Who  talked  Frank  Thompson  into a campaign to  shut  off  the  Select
Committee's  financial  resources?   (The  Thompson  efforts  cannot  be
explained away by the ordinary controller's motivations.)  Who convinced
Jim  Wright that the Committee was doomed and that he should  personally
intervene in the Gonzalez, Sprague and Committee members' battle?   And,
most  importantly, who brainwashed both Henry Gonzalez and  Gail  Beagle
into  mistrusting  the  people they had always  trusted?   Answer  these
questions  and  publicize  the answers, and  the  top-down  approach  to
exposing the PCG and solving the assassination conspiracies will be well
along the path to success.

                                Part II

                  "Hard" and "Soft" Propaganda in 1977

When  the time approached for the Select Committee on Assassinations  to
ask the House of Representatives for its 1978 budget, it was interesting
to once again examine the PCG's control over the American news media and
the  Congress.   To  those who observed  the  assassination  scene  with
blinders  removed, it was patently obvious that the December  1977  date
for  the  Select  Committee's budget approval was  a  target.   The  PCG
attempted  to  defeat  the  Committee's efforts  to  get  at  the  truth
underlying  the John Kennedy and Martin Luther King  assassinations  and
the cover-up crimes associated with them.

An  all-out effort was mounted by the PCG to influence the  thinking  of
citizens  and  the  votes  of the members of  the  House.   This  effort
manifested  itself in the major news media--over the three TV  networks,
the  "New  York  Times," "Washington  Post,"  "Newsweek,"  "Time,"  book
publishers, book reviewers, TV talk shows, etc.

This  massive  campaign  is  a useful test  to  prove  the  validity  of
contentions  made by this author and others in 1976 and 1977  concerning
the relationships between the Power Control Group and the American  news
media,  as  utilized  in  the  continuing  cover-ups  of  the   domestic
assassinations,  and in the PCG's efforts to destroy the reputations  of
assassination researchers[2] and the two official investigations of  the
John Kennedy assassinations.[3]

New  evidence  surfaced  in 1977 to support these  contentions:   a  CIA
document released under the Freedom of Information Act and an article by
a  new potential ally for assassination truth seekers,  Carl  Bernstein.
Both  of these documents were provided to the author by Ted Gandolfo  in
New  York, who now has his own weekly cable TV show on Friday nights  on
Manhattan TV entitled, "Assassination USA."

                  Evidence of Media Control by the CIA

Carl   Bernstein  wrote  an  article  exposing  the  CIA's  methods   of
controlling the news media.[4]  The basic technique dictates planting  a
Secret  Team  member  at the top of each major  media  organization,  or
obtaining tacit agreements from the top man to use reporters working for
the  CIA, and to use CIA people, stories, and policies on the inside  of
the  organization.   Bernstein named men above the level named  by  this
author  as  CIA  people  in certain  organizations.   For  example,  the
author's  claim was that Harding Bancroft, Jr. has been the CIA  control
point at the "New York Times."  Bernstein named Arthur Hays  Sulzberger,
the  owner of the "Times" and Bancroft's boss, as the CIA's man  at  the
"Times."   At  CBS, the author named Richard  Salant.   Bernstein  names
William  C.  Paley.  At the "Washington Post" and  "Newsweek"  Bernstein
names  Philip  Graham, Katherine Graham's husband, former owner  of  the
"Post" and "Newsweek," and by inference, Mrs. Graham since her husband's
death.   The  author  named Ben Bradlee.   But  Bernstein's  information
confirms the author's contention that the CIA controls the 15 news media
organizations in the U.S.

The other CIA top level individuals named by Bernstein are as follows:

  "Louisville Courier Journal"--Barry Bingham, Sr.
  NBC--Richard Wald
  ABC--Sam Jaffe
  Time, Inc.--Henry Luce
  Copley News Service--James Copley
  Hearst--Seymour Freiden

The  PCG,  through  their prime intelligence members,  are  today  still
controlling   what   the  media  do  and  say  about  the   subject   of
assassinations  and the Select Committee on Assassinations.[5]  They  do
this  by influencing the heads of each organization who determine  media
editorial policies that are carried out by their subordinates.  In  some
cases,  however,  lower  level people are  also  planted  as  reporters,
editors or producers to execute the policies, write the stories, produce
the programs, review the books, or write or publish the books.  The  CIA
also  owns  and controls many publishing houses,  freelance  writers  or
reviewers who can also be used in this massive campaign.

However,  the reader should not immediately jump to the conclusion  that
all  of  the  media  people  knowingly  continue  to  cover-up  of   the
assassination  conspiracies.   It is only necessary that  they  actually
believe  the  CIA's  stories and positions  against  conspiracies.   For
example,  Anthony  Lewis at the "New York Times"  participates  in  this
entire  fraud,  actually  believing  that Oswald  was  the  lone  madman
assassin.

It is inconceivable, however, that men intelligent enough to rise to the
top of CBS, NBC, ABC, the "New York Times et al." could actually believe
that  Oswald  was  the  lone assassin.  Some or most  of  them  must  be
cooperating fully in the PCG cover-up efforts.

             Proof of CIA Efforts to Discredit Researchers

A  recently  released  CIA document[6] was a dispatch  issued  from  CIA
headquarters  in  April 1967 to certain bases and stations  to  mount  a
campaign   through  media  contacts  (called  assets)  against   certain
assassination  researchers.   The targets included  Mark  Lane,  Joachim
Joesten, Penn Jones, Edward Epstein and Bertrand Russell.

The  document  describes an entire program to be used to  discredit  the
"critics."   Many  of the exact expressions that were used by  the  CIA-
controlled  media  to  attack  the researchers  can  be  found  in  this
document.   One  example  is:   "The CIA should  use  this  argument  in
general.   Conspiracy  on the large scale often suggested  (by  critics)
would  be impossible to conceal in the United States,  especially  since
informants  could  expect  to receive large  royalties,  etc."   Another
argument  suggested is:  "Note that Robert Kennedy, Attorney General  at
the  time  and  John  F. Kennedy's brother, would be  the  last  man  to
overlook or conceal any conspiracy."

How many times did we hear that between 1967 and 1969?

The document also suggests using an article by Fletcher Knebel to attack
Ed Epstein's book and to attack it rather than Mark Lane's book  because
"Lane's book is much more difficult to answer as a whole, as one becomes
lost in a morass of unrelated details."

The  timing of this document is particularly important.  April  1,  1967
was   approximately  two  months  after  Jim  Garrison's   investigation
surfaced, and only shortly after Garrison found David Ferrie murdered in
his  own apartment and had Clay Shaw arrested.  Since we now  know  that
both men were contract agents for the CIA and that the CIA went to great
lengths under Richard Helms' direction to protect Clay Shaw and to  keep
his  true identity from being revealed, the chances are good  that  this
document was triggered by Garrison's investigation.

The  names of the authors of the document have been blacked out  of  the
copy  that  was released.  Further research might  reveal  who  actually
wrote  it and "pulled it together" (as a note in hand print at  the  top
states).

                     The Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald

The top level media control was demonstrated by the ABC-TV program, "The
Trial  of Lee Harvey Oswald", whose co-director, Lawrence Schiller,  had
to  have been selected at the suggestion of the PCG.  Schiller,  one  of
the  worst people in the PCG's stable of freelancers, is best known  for
his book supporting the Warren Commission and attacking the researchers,
called "The Scavengers."[7]

Schiller  is perhaps the biggest scavenger ever created.  He  supposedly
obtained  a  "deathbed"  statement  from  Jack  Ruby  by  illegally  and
unethically  sneaking a tape recorder into his hospital room.   He  then
parlayed this into a wide-selling record with distasteful and untruthful
propaganda.   More recently he seized the opportunity to interview  Gary
Gilmore  before his execution, practically holding a mike to  his  mouth
while the commands were being given to the firing squad.

How, the reader may ask, could Schiller become a co-producer of a  major
ABC  television show?  The answer is simple.  He is available to  attack
and  ridicule  the  assassination  researchers  and  reinforce  the  no-
conspiracy idea for the PCG.

The ABC production crew had the full cooperation of the Dallas police in
re-enacting  the assassination event in Dealey Plaza.  There is  no  way
that  could  have happened without PCG influence.   The  Dallas  police,
quite guilty of cover-up in the case and having some individual  members
on the assassination team, would not permit anyone to film a reenactment
of  the assassination showing conspiracy or the truth.  The PCG  had  to
assure  them  that  the  program's editorial  position  would  be  anti-
conspiracy.

The "Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald" was given extensive publicity on TV, in
magazines,  in  newspapers.  In  England, a  special  article  about  it
appeared  in the Sunday magazine section of a London newspaper  complete
with photographs from the shooting sequence as filmed.[8]  The PCG spent
an  enormous  amount of money on the program and a  publicity  campaign.
There is no way ABC-TV could have done that on their own.  More than 80%
of the people believe there was a conspiracy:  why wouldn't ABC go along
with  the 80% of their viewers and portray the truth?  The answer  again
is  simple:  ABC is controlled from the very top, probably  much  higher
than the Sam Jaffe level, by the PCG and the CIA.

                             Other TV Shows

Both  NBC and CBS are planning major TV specials on the  assassinations.
CBS  is planning a show on Ruby and Oswald.  The theme will be that  the
Warren  Commission  was right and that both Oswald and  Ruby  were  lone
nuts.   Mr. Paley and Mr. Salant are the PCG people calling  the  shots.
NBC  is planning a show on Martin Luther King which will have a  section
on the assassination.  Even though Abbey Mann is directing the show  and
he would like to bring out some of the facts, it is certain that the PCG
members of NBC, including Richard Wald, will not permit any  conclusions
about  Ray's  innocence  or  information  about  Frenchy-Raoul  or  Jack
Youngblood (the real assassins) to be included.

                     Priscilla McMillan--CIA Agent

One of the more remarkable things about the massive 1977 campaign of the
CIA  and  the  PCG is their blatant use of freelance  writers  and  news
reporters  who are well known CIA agents to nearly anyone who has  taken
the time to pay attention.  Three agents are Priscilla McMillan and  her
husband, George McMillan, and Jeremiah O'Leary of the "Washington Star."
Priscilla (in particular) is so obviously an agent that even Dick Cavett
indirectly  accused her of being one when she appeared on his show  with
Marina Oswald to plug her new book.

The  CIA decided the perfect time to publish McMillan's  book[9],  which
had been completed for several years.  A publisher under CIA control was
selected, and the book was published in time for the December  committee
budget  vote.  The CIA arranged that Marina appear with Pat  on  several
national TV shows.  Priscilla had Marina well rehearsed for these shows-
-she  even retold the old lies about Oswald shooting at General  Walker.
The  commentators  selected  to interview  both  women,  including  Dick
Cavett,  David Hartmann (ABC), and Tom Snyder (NBC) had their orders  to
deal  delicately  with them and not to ask any  embarrassing  questions.
Cavett  came  closest  with his essentially  accusatory  question  about
whether Priscilla was a CIA agent.

No one asked Marina the one embarrassing question she would have had the
greatest  difficulty answering regarding the picture of  Oswald  holding
the  rifle and the communist newspaper that Marina claimed she  took  of
him:  "How was it possible for you to have taken a photograph that since
has been demonstrated to be a composite of three photographs, with  your
husband's  head  attached  to someone else's body  at  the  chin  line?"
(flashing  on  the screen Fred Newcomb's slide showing  the  chin  level
discontinuity).   Cavett  actually flashed the fake  photograph  on  the
screen at the beginning of his show, but he never mentioned it.

This  monumental PCG effort that involved controlling at least three  TV
networks,  a  CIA  publisher,  Marina Oswald,  a  CIA  agent,  Priscilla
McMillan,  an  enormous  amount of time and money, and  a  special  book
review  by the "New York Times"[10] demonstrates how much power the  PCG
has.

Some  of  those  people  who watched  "Good  Morning  America"  and  the
"Tomorrow  Show"  and the "Dick Cavett Show" (three different  types  of
national viewing audiences) who believe the lone assassin theory and the
Warren Commission had those beliefs reinforced by Priscilla McMillan and
Marina  Oswald.   It is wise for researchers, the  Select  Committee  on
Assassinations  and  others  who know what is really going  on,  not  to
underestimate this power of the PCG.

                           Fensterwald's Book

A book by Bud Fensterwald appeared in 1977 under the sponsorship of  the
PCG.[11]  This clever effort on the part of one of the CIA's best agents
was  designed to throw people off the track who have a  somewhat  deeper
interest  in  the JFK assassination.  It was meant to  divert  attention
away  from the CIA by omitting at least twelve of the  CIA  conspirators
who  were  in the files of the Committee to  Investigate  Assassinations
(co-founded by Fensterwald and the author in 1968).

No  excuse  can be given for leaving these key people out of  the  book,
because  the CIA had extensive files on most of them.   Bud  Fensterwald
even  had a personal correspondent relationship to the key informant  of
the group, Richard Case Nagell.  The twelve are: William Seymour, Emilio
Santana,  Manuel Garcia Gonzalez, Guy Gabaldin, Mary Hope, Richard  Case
Nagell,  Harry  Dean,  Ronald Augustinovich, Thomas  Beckham,  Fred  Lee
Crisman,  Frenchy,  and Jack Lawrence.  All of them were included  in  a
description  of  the details of the assassination team earlier  in  this
book and in an article by the author.[12]

Zebra  Books, the publisher of Fensterwald's book, is  a  CIA-controlled
organization  that  has  also  published  another  disinformation  book,
"Appointment in Dallas," by Hugh MacDonald.[13]  In both cases, the  PCG
intended to misdirect attention away from the CIA participants while  at
the  same  time  admitting conspiracy.  There is no  way  the  story  in
MacDonald's book can be true.  It maintains that Oswald at least planned
to  fire from the sixth floor window of the TSBD Building.  As all  good
researchers  know,  the photographs of the window, inside  and  outside,
prove there was no one firing from that window that day.

                      The de Mohrenschildt Murder

The Murder Inc. branch of the PCG killed George de Mohrenschildt when he
became  too  dangerous  for  them.  The media branch  of  the  PCG  then
undertook a campaign to discredit Willem Oltmans and NOS-TV (in Holland)
who happened to be in possession of a series of video and audio tapes of
de Mohrenschildt that will be very damaging for the PCG.

The  de Mohrenschildt murder has so far been concealed by the  PCG  with
the  help  of the media and portrayed as the suicide of a  man  who  had
become  insane.   As Willem Oltmans' book  clearly  demonstrates[14]  de
Mohrenschildt  was quite sane when he disappeared from Belgium.  He  was
in the process of giving Ed Epstein a story about his involvement in the
JFK assassination when he was murdered in Florida.

                    Donald Donaldson's Disappearance

General  Donald Donaldson, alias Dimitri Dimitrov alias Jim  Adams,  was
intimately   acquainted   with  the  CIA  people   who   planned   JFK's
assassination.  He was in Holland to tell his story to NOS-TV and Willem
Oltmans.   He  told  Oltmans that Allen Dulles was the key  CIA  man  in
planning  JFK's assassination.  (Donaldson had been brought to the  U.S.
as  a double agent during World War II by Franklin Roosevelt.)  He  held
back  his  knowledge of the assassination conspiracy  until  the  Church
Committee  was  formed.   He then took his information  to  Church,  who
brought  him to President Ford rather than having him questioned by  the
Church  Committee  or  the Schweiker  sub-committee.  Ford,  Church  and
Donaldson  had a meeting in which Ford talked both of them into  keeping
Donaldson's information under wraps.

When de Mohrenschildt was killed, Donaldson decided it was time to  make
his  information  public and to offer it to the  Select  Committee.   He
approached Oltmans, asked that his identity be kept secret, told NOS his
story, and then remained in Holland while Oltmans attempted to tell  the
story  to  President Carter.  Oltmans revealed Donaldson's  identity  on
American TV and to the Select Committee when Carter refused to listen to
the   story.   Donaldson  then  moved  to  England,   and   subsequently
disappeared from a London hotel, leaving large unpaid bills at both  his
London  and Amsterdam hotels.  The possibility is very good that he  has
gone the same route as de Mohrenschildt, murdered by the PCG.

                    Attacks on the Select Committee

One  of  a  series of attacks on the Select Committee  in  November  and
December, leading up to the December vote on the 1978 budget, took place
in the form of an article by probable CIA agent George Lardner, Jr., one
of  the  Select  Committee's biggest enemies.  He is one  of  the  PCG's
stable   of  reporters.   Lardner  wrote  an  article  for  the   Sunday
"Washington  Post"  on  November 6, 1977, portraying  the  Committee  as
engaging in random, uncoordinated activity, interrogating witnesses from
the  Garrison investigation (which Lardner labelled, "the zany  Garrison
investigation",  and  "the  fruitless investigation").   The  "New  York
Times," "Washington Star" and other media can be expected to open up all
barrels  under PCG direction.  The general theme will no doubt  be  that
the Committee has done nothing at all and that Oswald acted alone.[15]

If  Council  Blakey  or Chairman Stokes, or  JFK  subcommittee  Chairman
Preyer try to respond to these attacks they will be ripped to shreds  by
the  PCG's  media people.  As the author pointed out in part I  of  this
chapter,  the only chance the Committee and the House have to  keep  the
investigation  going is to expose the PCG and their media control,  from
the top down.  Otherwise the Committee cannot win the battle.
____________________
[1]  Power Control Group (PCG) defined in prior articles and one book by
     the author, as follows:

     The  PCG includes all organizations and individuals  who  knowingly
     participated  in  any of the domestic political  assassinations  or
     attempted assassinations, or in any of the efforts to cover-up  the
     truth about those assassinations.  This includes a large number  of
     murders of witnesses and participants. The assassinations  involved
     include, but are not necessarily limited to the following:

     John  Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King,  George  Wallace
     and Mary Jo Kopechne.

     The  PCG is a much larger group than just the clandestine parts  of
     the  CIA and the FBI, or the Secret Team as defined by L.  Fletcher
     Prouty.  It would however, include all those members of the  Secret
     Team or the CIA or the FBI falling under the definition.

[2]  The  author's  contentions  about media control  by  the  PCG  have
     appeared in one self-published book and several articles:

     (a) Book:   "The  Taking of America, 1-2-3," R.E.   Sprague,  self-
         published, Hartsdale, N.Y., 1976.  (First Edition.  This  Third
         Edition  contains chapters 15-17 plus the Appendix  which  were
         written after 1977.  --Editor)

     (b) Articles:  "The  American News Media and the  Assassination  of
         President  John  F.  Kennedy:  Accessories  After  Fact,"  R.E.
         Sprague, "Computers and Automation," June, July, 1973.

     (c) "The Central Intelligence Agency and the `The New York Times,'"
         R.E. Sprague.  (Using pseudonym Samuel F. Thurston)  "Computers
         and  Automation," July, 1971.  Republished in "People  and  the
         Pursuit of Truth," May, 1977.

     (d) "Congressional Investigation of Political Assassinations in the
         United  States:   The Two Approaches:  From the Bottom  Up  vs.
         From  the Top Down," R.E. Sprague, "People and the  Pursuit  of
         Truth," May, 1977.

[3]  The  two  official  investigations  of  the  Kennedy  assassination
     referred to here are:

     (a) The  investigation  by the office of the district  attorney  of
         Orleans Parish, New Orleans, La. 1966 to 1969 (Jim Garrison).

     (b) The investigation by the Select Committee on Assassinations  of
         the U.S. House of Representatives 1976-1977.

     The investigations by the Schweiker-Hart subcommittee of the Church
     committee  and  the  Ervin Watergate committee  were  never  really
     approved  by  Congress, and so lacked the power  and  influence  to
     become a threat to the PCG.

[4]  "The  CIA and the Press," Carl Bernstein, "Rolling Stone,"  October
     4,  1977.  A copy of the full unedited manuscript of  this  article
     was also made available to the author.  The "Rolling Stone" version
     had selected names omitted.

[5]  Bernstein's  article also describes the CIA influence over  several
     other media organizations without naming the top executives.  These
     are:

     "New York Herald Tribune"
     "Saturday Evening Post"
     "Scripps Howard Newspapers"
     "Associated Press"
     "United Press International"
     "Reuters"
     "Miami Herald"

     And a CIA official told Bernstein, "that's just a small part of the
     list."

[6]  The CIA document was obtained by Harold Weisberg under the  Freedom
     of  Information Act.  It is dated 4/1/67 and labelled "Dispatch  to
     Chiefs, Certain Stations and Bases."  Document Number 1035-960  for
     "FOIA  Review" on September 1976.  Object: Countering Criticism  of
     the "Warren Report."

[7]  "The  Scavengers  and  Critics  of  the  Warren  Report,"  Lawrence
     Schiller, Dell Publishing Co., New York, 1967.

[8] "The Big If," "London Sunday Times," September 18, 1977.

[9]  "Marina and Lee," Patricia McMillan, Harper & Row, 1977.

[10] A  review  of the McMillan book appeared in the  "Sunday  New  York
     Times"  book  review section on November 6, 1977.  It  praised  the
     book  to  the skys, backed up the Warren Commission,  and  severely
     attacked the researchers and the Select Committee.

[11] "Coincidence or Conspiracy," Bernard Fensterwald, Jr., Zebra Books,
     New York, 1977.

[12] (a) "The  Taking  of  America, 1-2-3," Richard  E.  Sprague,  self-
         published, 1976.

     (b) "The   Assassination  of  President  John  F.   Kennedy:    The
         Involvement of the Central Intelligence Agency in the Plans and
         the  Cover-Up", Richard E.  Sprague -- "People and the  Pursuit
         of Truth," May, 1975.

[13] "Appointment  in Dallas," Hugh C. McDonald, Zebra Books, New  York,
     1975.

[14] "George  de  Mohrenschildt,"  Willem  Oltmans,  Published  in   The
     Netherlands, Unpublished in the United States.

[15] This  chapter  originally appeared as  the  article  "Congressional
     Investigation of Political Assassinations in the United States: The
     Two Approaches:  From the Bottom Up vs. From the Top Down," by  the
     author in "People and the Pursuit of Truth," May, 1977.  Since  the
     original article was written, in November 1977 the Select Committee
     decided  that the budget money approved in 1977 was  sufficient  to
     carry  over a few months into 1978.  No budget request was made  in
     December 1977.  The PCG can now be expected to continue its attacks
     until  the  spring of 1978 when the budget request  will  be  made.
     (January 4, 1978)
